Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Reverses Itself On Pro-Choice News Texting Ban
fermion writes "Verizon has reacted to an NYT report filed earlier today on their decision to ban text message news clips from a pro-choice group, reversing the ban on that content. 'Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters. But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages. In reversing course today, Verizon did not disclaim the power to block messages it deemed inappropriate.'"
One can imagine the process that led to the decision. Senior executive picks up New York Times, Senior Executive calls CEO, CEO gives order, New York Times receives correction. For any company to insert itself into such political situations is lose-lose proposition. The opposing side is only going to cheer a partisan ban that allows them to send messages while blocking the opposing side. The critics were right, the Verizon ban is a precursor of what a net without net neutrality would look like: occasional partisan decisions by corporations are rapidly reversed as the businesses attempt to eliminate themselves from the decision process.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Not only in America but also in Europe you see the rights that citizens fought hard and long for in the 19th and 20th century carelessly chucked away by people who who have no idea about the efforts and hardships it cost to achieve those rights, and the reasons why gouvernments back then changed the laws to the citizens benefits. I know Verizon is not a gouvernment but they should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, regardless of media.
-- Cheers!
It's always good to be reminded that our text messages are read, our cell phone conversations are easily eavesdropped, and the government can listen to any of our communications at any time and many carriers will gladly help the government invade our privacy.
Scott McNealy said it best -- "Privacy is dead, get over it."
The issue was not that Verizon was censoring, but rather that Verizon -- at its customers' insistence -- is acting aggressively to stop text message spam.
Verizon customers pay to receive text messages. So it is not particularly surprising that many Verizon customers would object to receiving spam from NARAL even if they are pro-choice on the abortion issue. I, for one, do not want any text message spam no matter who it's from.
However, in this particular case, NARAL's spam is opt-in. Verizon's text message policy was drawn up before it had effective spam blocking; and the policy never considered opt-in. Verizon reversed itself with lightning fast speed to accomodate a changed world. How many other companies would react in a matter of a few hours?
Very true, and the legal fix is simple. If you run a network, and interfere with the contents of any message, then you are responsible for the contents of every message. If you censor things, then any message that is illegal (slander, libel, copyright infringement, etc.), is your legal liability. You may choose to filter based on traffic type (e.g. only allow voice over your mobile phone network, only allow HTTP over your IP network, whatever), but if you filter based on origin, destination, or content then you are liable. This is more or less what the law already says for POTS operators parcel carries. There's no reason why it shouldn't be generalised.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The radio outrage if it had been a "pro-life" group that Verizon had banned?
Spammers would love such a law, as that would effectively outlaw any spam-blocking at the ISP level.
Be careful what you wish; your wish may be granted.
What do you do about the political causes that aren't powerful enough to have some Times reporter's direct line? Guess they're S.O.L.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Have you ever played Deus Ex? Near the end of the game, a character notes that surveillance fulfills a role that used to be reserved for religiously-inspired deities, in that at some level people want to be watched because they crave notice and approval, to believe that they matter and to erase the feeling of loneliness that civilization can otherwise paradoxically inspire. Humans, being social creatures, have a need to be a part of a greater whole, and define themselves at least partially by other people's labels and opinions. We may love our privacy, or seem to externally, but deep down we crave to be valued. The character points out that as the original religious paradigm began to lose significance, the need started to be re-located onto worship of fame, cults of personality, and ubiquitous state surveillance. Sound familiar?
Not that I normally take my sociological cues from video games, but this observation strikes me as an accurate one.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
MOD PARENT UP! (darn, I just used my last mod point earlier today)
This article touches on two key topics, censorship and abortion, that are sure to get people all fired up before they can read the details. You've covered censorship. Now I'd like to pour a little water on the abortion fire with this (FTA):
A spokesman for Verizon said the decision turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral's position on abortion. "Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position," said the spokesman, Jeffrey Nelson. "It is the topic itself" -- abortion -- "that has been on our list."So they're not (at least they claim they're not) taking a "side" in the abortion issue, they just don't want to be associated with the issue at all. I'm not saying there isn't anything here to get fired up about, but let's keep it in perspective and not turn it into another right wing conspiracy theory.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Parent is modded "Troll" yet the gp isn't even modded? seriously?
It's either one of two things. 1) my favorite troll mods that will mod me down (even days later) just because it was me that posted or 2) it's a pro-life troll mod that hates the fact that someone might want to leave it up to someone to make their own mind about an issue rather than agreeing to Groupthink (TM).
It's really unfortunate that I haven't had mod points in years but douchebags that routinely moderate me down w/o good reason continue to have them. You listening Taco?
If you choose to not watch the movie that is a decision that affects only you. Movie theaters censoring affects their customers and the creators of the films. Just because its a business decision doesn't make it not censorship.
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
So they're not (at least they claim they're not) taking a "side" in the abortion issue, they just don't want to be associated with the issue at all.
But they're not associated with the issue, until they choose to not let people receive messages from NARAL, messages their users signed up to receive. If Verizon had wanted to stay out of the fray, they wouldn't have made the initial decision to block the messages in the first place. As usual, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth; they got called on it by the media and had to do a hasty retreat before a backlash occurred.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I see this arguement constantly, "we can't legislate against it because it will force people into "back alley abortions".
WAKE UP PEOPLE in what alternate reality do you base laws on what people "are going to do anyway"? I mean by that logic we should get rid of all of the laws against normal murder, because hey, since we can't just walk people into a "deathspital" and have them killed, we have to go and do it in an alley. That's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.
Or, lets see, people are going to steal stuff, but since it's against the law they actually have to break in and steal it, and sometimes they, or the people they are stealing from get hurt. Lets just make stealing legal, that way people can just go someplace and say "I'm stealing this" and be given it, and no one gets hurt.
That argument just doesn't make sense.
It's one of several arguments. There are often such "pragmatic" laws. The key is often "harm to another" angle. For instance fair use is somewhat relates. It is the issues of economic harm to the producer of some content vs the rights of a end user to modify or use the content. So it is a consideration. The conflict of the control of ones body vs the right to life of a unborn child is one thats pretty cut and dry. One side is death the other 9 mo of inconvenience and a dramatic change in a person life. I wouldn't hang my entire opinion on the subject on it. As I do believe the kids right to life ought trump the mothers right not to have to deal with it. However it contribute to my opinion as it's a consequence of banning abortion.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
No, the real problem isn't that your post was controversial, it's that it contains so much common sense that it makes even those who would enslave women under the chains of theocratical bullshit hang their heads in shame.
My god! Humans are sexual creatures? Perish the thought. Lower the rate of abortion by actually supporting young, unwed mothers and *gasp* teaching kids about how sex really works*? We can't do that! Oh no! Sex is bad! Nobody has sex! EVER!
The number of companies that support Planned Parenthood, I was quite surprised to read that it was pro-choice messages that were being blocked.
IIRC, (and that's a big if) - just recently, a network covering the superbowl refused to carry a pro-life ad because of its "controversial" nature.
Think about that for a moment. They'll advertise contraceptives and STD medications on tv on a regular basis, (Toddler voice: Daddy, what's an S-T-D?), yet refuse to accept money for pro-life advertising. You would think that any business with any advertising standards whatsoever wouldn't allow ads for something as personal as human sexuality, yet, they go on with wanton abandon. But as soon as someone wants to talk about the consequences of sex (i.e. unwanted children), they suddenly become moralists?!
The so-called standards to which Corporate America(TM) holds itself are completely arbitrary and capricious. Anyone who thinks that having any corporate control over media needs to re-examine the history of Corporate America in light of its effects on influencing the freedoms of the little guy through lobbying and oppressive legislation (Taft-Hartley, anyone?). Sure, you may be pro-choice or pro-life, but no matter what you are, it needs to be recognized that corporate control of communication networks effectively subverts the Constitutional freedoms our ancestors worked so hard to attain.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I would say they appear to have fucked themselves. By taking steps to decide which text messages are "appropriate" for their network, are they not assuming responsibility for the content of all text messages carried on their network? The terms "safe harbour" and "common carrier" spring to mind.
Of course, IANAL, and may be full of it. But this doesn't look like a very smart move.
I don't care why you're posting AC
You misunderstand; perhaps I came off as too defensive. I was attempting to distinguish myself from people (and they do exist) who uncritically swallow the ideas and ideologies of their favorite media, whether it be books, movies, or video games, simply because it is their favorite, and not because of the relative quality of the particular ideas being presented. A video game, per se, is no more or less worthy a conduit for serious ideas than any other media, though particular games may be individually more or less valuable in that regard. I think when it comes to vagaries of media, genre plays a more important role than medium in judging suitability. For example, I think it was Penn Jillette who remarked that comedy is a frustrating medium for social critique because the message gets short-circuited by the laughter, but on the other hand being funny does allow one to say more provocative things than might otherwise be tolerated.
I like to triangulate the ideas I run into from different sources. The whole "people secretly like to be watched" thing is nothing new, but its presentation in Deus Ex was particularly succinct, skillful, and therefore memorable. Also, taking into account the general composition of the /. crowd and their relative interests, I would imagine it to be more likely that a reader would be more familiar with Deus Ex than some other sources.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)